Four years ago, a lawsuit was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Committee to Bridge the Gap, and City of Los Angeles, alleging that the Department of Energy’s (DOE) plan for cleanup and remediation of Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Lab was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other Federal laws.  Specifically, it challenged the DOE’s decision to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) instead of preparing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  The DOE’s “Preferred Alternative” plan would leave behind 98% of the radioactively contaminated soil on the site.

On May 2, 2007, the U.S. District Court issued a scathing order in favor of the Plaintiffs, pointing to “overwhelming support for Plaintiffs’ argument that the DOE’s decision … is in violation of NEPA.”  The Court went on to call the DOE’s FONSI decision “a clear error of judgment,” some of the DOE’s arguments “laughable,” and the survey done by Rocketdyne, on which most of the soil radioactivity information relied, “riddled with problems.”

It concluded with an order that the DOE complete an EIS before the site could be released.  The Court retained jurisdiction until satisfied “that the DOE has met its legal obligations as they relate to the remediation of Area IV.”

“Given that the DOE had appeared to be fast tracking their cleanup under this lowest of standards, the Court’s decision was wonderful news,” said Assemblymember Brownley.  “You can imagine my shock to learn on Wednesday, May 23, that, in spite of Court’s order for an EIS just three weeks prior, that the DOE was proceeding with plans to demolish Building 4024 and the Radioactive Materials Handling Facility at Area IV.

“Since the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) must approve the Closure Plan, and was aware of the DOE’s activities, I immediately e-mailed them a demand for an explanation and a demand that they take immediate steps to stop DOE.  Within two hours, I received a return e-mail from Norman Riley, SSFL Project Director, and a copy of the letter he had just e-mailed to the DOE in Oakland, directing the DOE to cease their activities.”  (Letter being separately forwarded.)

The DTSC is now suspending their review of the Closure Plan, “as our review will be affected by the EIS considerations.” Riley characterized the DOE’s dismantling of either building on the site as “inappropriate … prior to completion of the EIS, as the purpose of an EIS is to consider potential environmental impacts prior to taking actions, not afterwards.”

Brownley was emphatic that she “could not agree more. I hope that the DTSC letter will serve as clear notice to the DOE that the cleanup of this site to the highest possible standards to protect the public health and safety is not going to be short-circuited, nor any attempts to subvert the language or intent of the District Court’s order tolerated.  I also expect that the DTSC will be vigilant in exercising their authority over the related chemical cleanup after the EIS process has been completed, and I thank them for taking such swift action on my request.”